Intelligent Design and the Death of the "Junk-DNA" Neo-Darwinian Paradigm

Discovery Institute ^ | June 15, 2007 | Casey Luskin

[Papabear47]

Who is to say that God has not used evolution with a push here or there to get us where we are today.We have no imperical data either way....The existance of God can neither be proven or disproven although I believe a Supreme being exists,

[balch3]

only the ones with blinders on who have been brainwashed by the atheistic religion of Darwinism.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

It seems presumptous to call a sequence “junk” just because you don’t see its function.

Not if you are a Darwinian. Randomness implies "chaos and puposelessness" i.e. "junk". ID implies "direction and purpose".

Randomness is a subset of Darwinian thinking. That could predespose a Darwinist not to question the metaphor "junk" but an ID'er would more likely than not assume the "junk" was in fact somehow useful stuff. And it was up to science to discover its purpose.

[MEGoody]

Despite what is posted, no one seriously thought that "Junk" DNA was never going to be found to have a function.

If there is no 'junk' DNA, i.e. DNA that now serves no purpose as the species has evolved, that would seem to be a problem for evolutionary theory.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

"Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

But what if the "materialist world view" is false? And the "theistic world view" is true? Should we then stick to a false theory in order to prop up a false world view?

[Moonman62]

only the ones with blinders on who have been brainwashed by the atheistic religion of Darwinism.

There is nothing atheistic about Darwinism or evolution. The world is the way it is. If you think the truth we discover about the world threatens the existence of God then your faith is very weak.

[VOA]

It seems presumptous to call a sequence “junk” just because you
don’t see its function.

A similar situation existed in natural product chemistry.
The term "secondary products" was applied to many compounds extracted
from plants that didn't seem to fit into any of the "primary" compounds
that were involved in the main metabolic pathways.
The chemists didn't presume the secondary compounds were junk...
they were just classified as something usually not critically
important to the plant, but not yet assigned a role.
Over the years we've found they play roles in plant defense,
allelopathy, and other functions unsuspected previously.

[Paradox]

If there is no 'junk' DNA, i.e. DNA that now serves no purpose as the species has evolved, that would seem to be a problem for evolutionary theory.

According to whom?This is not the case.

[Paradox]

A late 2006 poll by CBS showed that: Belief system

Creationist view 55%

Theistic evolution 27%

Naturalistic Evolution 13%

Irrelevant. Although personally, I am somewhat disposed to #2.

[GodGunsGuts]

It’s not irrelevant in terms of latent political potential should ID begin to get the upper hand.

[Paradox]

Public Opionion polls are no way to conduct this kind of science.

[fabian]

well that’s a good start. They should never had tried to prejudiced students minds by calling the unknown “junk dna.” That is typical of darwinists...not very honest without even knowing it. Many other holes in the evolution theory are kept out of the classroom along with the competing theories of ID and creationism. It is not that they are not valid as some very deceived minds would have us believe. THe facts prove otherwise...the darkness which has a grip on so many learned minds simply can’t stand the truth so it just tries to claim it is not science. He was always a liar from the beginning and now does his most crafty work through unwitting scientists and teachers. I am glad the evidence is so available nowadays largely through the internet.

[Coyoteman]

THe facts prove otherwise...the darkness which has a grip on so many learned minds simply can’t stand the truth so it just tries to claim it is not science. He was always a liar from the beginning and now does his most crafty work through unwitting scientists and teachers.

I recommend:

Sagan, Carl
  1996  The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. Random House Inc., New York.

[fabian]

thanks...is Sagan revealing a belief in the spirit world in that book?

[Coyoteman]

thanks...is Sagan revealing a belief in the spirit world in that book?

No.

[GodGunsGuts]

==Public Opionion polls are no way to conduct this kind of science.

Of course not. But if ID scientists manage to convince the public that Darwin’s theory of origins is untenable, then we have the numbers to make a very rapid sweep of the Church of Darwin’s stranglehold on the ideology of science.

[Coyoteman]

But if ID scientists manage to convince the public that Darwin’s theory of origins is untenable, then we have the numbers to make a very rapid sweep of the Church of Darwin’s stranglehold on the ideology of science.

Disproving the theory of evolution would not "prove" ID. For that, you have to have scientific evidence.

And if there was so much scientific evidence for ID, the Discovery Institute would not be running a PR campaign instead of conducting scientific research.

Face it, they are pushing religion under the guise of science. And so far, they have not reached even the level of junk science. Read the court testimony of the Dover case, and see what the folks pushing ID admitted to when they were under oath and had to tell the truth.

[fabian]

it’s happening the more we learn about the incredible complexities of creation. Most people are not as confused and mislead as die hard darwinists. A brainfull of false knowledge is a very big burden!

[GodGunsGuts]

==isproving the theory of evolution would not “prove” ID.

I assume you mean Darwin’s theory of evolution. There are many competing theories of evolution just waiting for their chance. But disproving Darwin’s theory would certainly remove the current gatekeepers tasked with preventing ID from becoming a mainstream scientific research project.

[Stultis]

Stephen Meyer explaining that this is a prediction of intelligent design

Uh, yeah. Hey, Steve, how is "this is a prediction of intelligent design"? [...cue crickets...]

IOW how do otherwise unexpected, and usefully specific, predictions about the function of DNA sequences follow deductively from the mechanisms and empirical claims of ID. (Especially when ID has no mechanism and makes no empirical claims!)